>> i am actually the press guy at freedom wars. anyone from ohio? [cheering] >> if the people who wore this uniform could look down on us that they would be pretty proud. but it was pretty spontaneous. but what we have to do is take this movement and make sure we are putting it in the right direction so that we can actually make this change the change we believe in. to that end once again if you could pull out your phone and text "my usa." we want to make sure the media knows what issues we find

important when this event closes. thanks very much, and thanks for coming today. [cheering] . >> please put your hands together. >> you know, d.c. is a spectacular city, but for $12 trillion i expect a little bit more. [cheering] pleasure of living all over america. i know the good people. i lived in alabama, nebraska, new mexico, nevada, west virginia. and today i come to you with the message from the citizens of the commonwealth of virginia. virginia stands with you!

[cheering] today i bring a message from the citizens of the commonwealth of virginia to the people who work in this building. your soul belongs to the board, but your career blocks to me. [cheering] to the right thing. the commonwealth of virginia, give me liberty or give me death. judging the future but by the past. the history of the world's legacy and tyranny in the will and america is of very special and fragile and amazing thing founded on freedom, and we must protect that. we must defend that at all

costs. [cheering] to of those fighting for freedom, not just the people here, but the people all across america at home, for those people willing to fight for freedom i pledge to you -- a pledge to you to stay safe, and i pledge the 6,000 people of the richmond tea party april 15th 56 signers of the declaration of independence plans to each other. i pledge to you my life, my fortune, and by sacred honor. are you willing to pledge that to me? fifteen are you willing to pledge that to the to the perso? [cheering] let me hear you then. god bless you!

god bless the united states of america! [cheering] [inaudible] i just feel like even risking my life for. >> i want to the 18 enumerated powers in the constitution. what the federal government to do that at no more. if we need health care reform, and we do, it needs to be taking care of by the state's. >> right now we have to prevent that from happening. >> if this goes through my family will pay a dear price for it. >> we have to send a message, a real message, the concern that weñr have. you know, we are just scared.

people are scared with what is going on. >> we are the boss. they work for us. you know, it is often said by many people. i serve at the pleasure of the president. they really serve at the pleasure of us. >> the sleeping giant has truly a welcome. i have never protested before. i have met so many people here today. their first time protesting. we are here to stand up and take your country back. >> where were you when our nation failed? i can honestly say i was there, honey. i was there fighting all the way in every way i knew how with everything i had. my question to you is this, what are you going to do? >> on a conference call. on that conference call was amy

kramer, and she saw the national coordinator of a tea party patriots. she is also one of my co coordinators'. a. b. kramer. [cheering] >> hello, america. i am so glad to be here with all of you today and to stand before you. you see, i am no one special. i am just your average everyday mom just like the rest of you who is tired of seeing what is going on in my government, tired of yelling at my radio, tired of yelling at my tv, and decided to get off my couch and involved and do something. back and did you worry there were about 22 of last that came together on a conference call.

we did not know that it would grow into what it yesterday. that first round of the parties we had 50 t parties across the country with 40,000 people in attendance. on april 15th we had 850 tea parties across this country with 1.2 million people in attendance. and that was because of all of you. that was your tea party. and today is america's tea party. this is the biggest tea party of all, and i congratulate each and every one of you. our elected officials were in recess. they were not very hospitable at these town halls, and there weren't one here in washington. we are not sure where many of them were. you see in the south hospitality is everything. we decided to bring the

hospitality and the tea party here to our capitol. that is the american people's capitol where they will hear us. they have no other alternative. [cheering] i have been very blessed these past two weeks. i have been going around the country on the tea party express. you guys know about the tea party express? somebody told me before i left to go on that, i don't know why you're doing that. it's not very well organized and there is nobody that is going to show out. they were brought. we started in sacramento, and we have taken our message 7,000 miles across this country and have joined you here today [cheering] you know, i can't believe this crowd. i knew it was going to be big.

last friday after we left dallas, texas out in the middle of know where we were expecting 50-100 people. when we pulled up we had to be escorted in by the highly patrol and the state police because the rubber 800-1000 people at that rest. degree yes. we had people join us from all across the country to bring our message here to washington. i am so blessed to be here standing shoulder to shoulder with all of you. we have to keep engaged to be that want nt to congratulate ead every one of you for making this trip, making this journey. we are all in this together. we have to continue this fight. there is not any one person, any one organization that can fight this battle on our own.

it's going to take an entire grass-roots army. i encourage you all to stay engaged. i want to invite my friends and my tea party express family member up to the stage. >> hello, america. we are the tea party express. [cheering] 35 cities. [cheering] we have heard your voices, ladies and gentlemen, and we are standing united with you because we are not 50 red states or 50 blue states. we are the united states of america, one nation under god. [cheering]

our freedom against our government, and it's time to take america back and move america forward in a positive direction. [cheering] it is time to tell our government that the clock is ticking. november 2010 is coming, and if they do not listen to the will of the people we are going to hand them a pink slip. stop the bailouts, reduce the size of intrusive government, stop the out-of-control spending, and stop this madness. [cheering] it is time to give the control back to the people at state and local levels where it belongs. i want to take a moment to introduce my team, ryan gill,

selena and william collins, sal and janet. ron and kate. gary dunn, andy kramer, and tiffany. thank you all so much. [cheering] >> tea party express. thanks for your support. [cheering] >> from the great state of tennessee please welcome representative marsha blackburn.

>> i am absolutely thrilled that you are here. i don't know if there has ever been a gathering in this city. to the 1.5 million of you have traveled your congratulations. you have gridlocked washington, d.c. you are here, and i am thrilled to see you all. welcome. a great many of you have come by my office. i have spoken with you. you have told me that you felt called to be here today. it is a noble calling. you told me that you were worried that america will soon cease to be what she has been. you worry that our glorious potential and our exceptional purpose will be buried not by partisan bickering, but by

thoughtless debt. and you have been called to start liberty and to defend the futures of our children and our grandchildren. you know, this is a noble calling. many of my colleagues and i shared that calling with you, and we have come to washington to answer that call. unfortunately there are others here in washington who only field called to your wallet. and those who have come here to washington to exercise government's first right of refusal on your paychecks, to keep that cold and grasping hand of government in your pocket. they would have you believe that they are making tough choices in this building behind me, but you and i know that they are taking more and more and more and more. not the tough choice for washington. spending more and more.

washington is pushing the tough choices on to you, and you have had enough. you are the ones who are sacrificing, not those that are towering in their offices in the buildings behind me. you have sacrificed to be in this city. let's stand together and fight for freedom. thank you. >> please welcome the president of the institute for liberty, andrew langer. >> all right, everybody. i want everybody on this side to yell out don't tread. i want everybody on this side to yell out on me. >> don't tread. >> on me. >> don't tread. >> on me. >> don't tread.

>> on me. >> don't tread. >> on me. tyrranies of government, and that is why we are here today, something radically has changed in the last few months. you alll made history today. as i said earlier, this is the largest gathering of free-market limited-government individuals in the nation's history. you ought to be damn proud. [cheering] nationally controll. because if you look up storm clouds are brewing over washington, d.c. the storm has com. the fact is they are scared. why are they scared? because they now know. they now know that you all know more than they do about the legislation that they are trying to pass. they are well aware that you

know what this legislation is going to do to our country. is not just about reading the bill, but about giving you the ability to read legislation. that turning point in america has been reached. what i want you all to do right now because we have got to get that signed, that let-freedom-ring pledge. i want you all to take out your cellphone and text the word "pledge" to the 74362. "pledge" to 74362. and i want you to keep one thing in mind. cap their turn. thank you all.

[cheering] [inaudible] i don't know when this country said that irresponsibility is rewarded with bell labs, where need is a claim on your hard work and production and your pocketbook, but that is where this country is heading. it is time we took back this country. it is time. it is time we reached out to to the spirit. it is time we reached out to the idea that is america. and what is that idea?

this country was founded on a moral principle, on an ethical principle, on the principle of individual rights, on your rights, each one of you. to your own life. it is yours, not your neighbors. it is yours. it is yours, not the person who didn't save for social security. it is your life. it is your liberty. and you have the right, an inalienable right to pursue your own happiness. that is the spirit of this country. that is what this country is all about. you owe yourself to make your life the best that it can be. you are not. you are not your brother's keeper. if you want better health care,

work hard, get a job, buy health insurance. leave us free. thank you all. [cheering] >> get ready. here is lloyd marcus. >> hello, my fellow countrymen. i am not an affluent american. i am lloyd marcus american. [cheering]

>> ♪start spreading the news. ♪i'm telling out today. ♪we're taking back america in 2010. ♪this nightmare must come to an end cause we're going to vote them out in 2010. ♪i want to wake up an american. ♪without acorn raking my knees.

♪soon melt away. ♪we are taking back the house and the senate in 2010. ♪we can stop them there. ♪they don't have a prayer. ♪it's up to you in 2010. >> out-of-control administration. so have i. ♪2010. ♪i want to wake up in an america. ♪to find my freedom restored,

acorn is a out, no obamacare. ♪my obama blues are melting away. ♪we're gonna take back america in 2010. ♪and we can stop them, baby. ♪but it's up to you. ♪come through in 2010.

♪2010. [cheering] >> yeah. >> thank you. thank you. [inaudible] local coordinators. now the world trade center eight years ago on september 11th. [cheering] >> is this a great day to be an american or what? [cheering] if you can't tell my accent is

new york. like the guy is an immigrant. they consider me an emigrant with ant with my accent here. but for me to stand here after responding to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 in 2001. this was the most dramatic attack on america on everything we are by people who want every single one of you dead. all right? just understand that. and we lost so many great people in new york. we continue to lose them from these terrible diseases. for us 9/12 when we worked in the ground pit of 9/11 in ground zero we did not know it was even going to happen tomorrow. after the sun came up the morning of september 12th we had hope that america had survived this incredible attack and that we stand together as a

nation, as a people, and as americans. and no one is going to mess with us. [cheering] rally together. believe in america. god bless you. [cheering] >> next from my home state from in georgia state representative tom graves. >> hello, america. from the great state of georgia, we want to know, are you fired up yet? [cheering] >> good. we need them fired up. 1980 and the president ronald reagan said a government is

never more dangerous than when we are blinded from how it can harm us. yes, these are dangerous days, but guess what? we are blind no more. we can see clearly now. we can see what has been done and, yes, what we must do. we must take back america the republic and we must push back this overreaching, overtaxing, overburdensome, money-hungry government that seeks our liberty. guess what? this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. and we will not stand to be a people of the government, by the government, or for the

government. we demand less spending, that deficit spending. we will demand a balanced budget, not a port filled budget. we will demand personal responsibility, not the bureaucratic nanny. and yes we will demand and powering the patriot and not the politicians anymore. market on the chalkboard. this capitol on this high ground, we about to get here together united, and we will be steadfast and resolved in preserving america and her liberties. may today be forever known as the day that we stood together and said in one voice don't tread on me. can you say it with me?

don't tread on me. [cheering] one more time. don't tread on me. god bless you, and may the lord bless and grace america. [cheering] >> he is the president of the hispanic leadership mario lopez >> hello. it is a beautiful day in america. [cheering] >> it is a beautiful day to be an american patriot. it is beautiful to see so many of you standing here in. there are almost as many of you here as there are pages in the obamacare bill. i think some of my fellow speakers have been a little unfair to some of the liberals here. some of them to want to simplify our tax code, and we should take a moment to highlight that. sources tell me that at this

very moment president obama, leader reid and pelosi are working diligently behind closed doors. they want to boil down the complexity of the 1040 tax form and make it just two short lines. the first line is going to be how, much did you make. the second line is going to be, send it in. d it in my parents came this kwointer with a few dollars in their pocket and a dream to make a letter life for themselvesnd their children. i have been able to realize man@ now we are

here to take it back ♪ ♪ take it back. take back the american dream. thank you. thank you. [applause]

>> of the united states marine corps. [cheers and applause] >> hello america! [cheers and applause] beyond with my fellow patriots fighting for freedom is what gives me chills running up my leg. [cheers and applause] on that beautiful morning of tuesday september 11, 2001 osama bin laden aimed to wipe out economic and military strength and ultimately the pride of the nation. how we underestimate spirited figure of the american people. [cheers and applause] because of my love and i decided to join the military i knew nothing about the military but i knew i would serve my country, and i shifted the focus of my life. on july 31st, 2004i was commission of united states

marine corps on liberty ireland in the shadow of the statue of liberty facing crown c row. [cheers and applause] and i have had to taurus since. my story is one of many inspiring stories that describe the spirit of americans willing to fight for the cause greater than themselves for liberty and freedom against tyranny. [cheers and applause] people defied by throwing tea into boston harbor. world war one and two and the caribbean and the imam war mant left their family knowing they may never return home. we are free because the price paid by those who sacrificed much. i am thankful for heroes like myself who fought battles in defense of the great nation and for the opportunity i have had to serve as a marine officer for the nation. i'm thankful for my friend first lieutenant need christoff who gave his life for the country.

he even inspired his father who is a surgeon to lead his private practice and become a navy doctor. lieutenant commander kristoff just finished his tour of duty in iraq and asked me to tell you the following. austin and marine first lt. and all i have been in iraq to somehow complete meets unfinished task. we have performed our smaller role in the larger mission mate would be very proud of his fellow marines. [cheers and applause] i will never forget the blood shed for the country and my friends who've lost their lives and limbs and have been severely disfigured. the her the defense of september 11th 2001 martin to the unifying events of september 12, 2001. september 12th united we stand was not just a bumper sticker. on that day we were one nation

under god indefensible, and we still are, but we seem to have forgotten. but it's time to come together and reestablish a commitment we had on that day. our founding fathers affirmed their support for the declaration of independence by pledging their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor and i hope we do the same for our country. god bless america. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> he's the administrator of small business association and author of the book titled the edge of america. here is hectored. >> hello america. welcome. we are so happy to see you here. all of you are patriots. i was proud to be the

administrator for five years and the number one issue for small businesses was always healthcare but i don't recognize any of the people talking about small businesses, those 27 million of this great economy. i don't think those people have ever made a payroll. i don't think any of them have had employees and i don't think any of them have had to worry about how to have access to health care so that is why we are so glad to see you here. it is simple. we don't need another trillion dollars in debt to fix some of the problems we have a small business owners. we get it. we don't need to go more in debt. we don't need more regulation. all we are asking for is common sense solutions, and we agree with the president in the sense that it needs to be by

partisanship. that isn't too much to ask, is it? i didn't think so. so if the powers that we agree we need to help small businesses then let's agree we all want reform. yes, we do. but make no mistake if what you are selling is more bureaucracy, more regulation, more where rationing, more death and taxes, less choice, less competition, less freedom to make our own choices repeat after me, we are not binding. [chanting "we're not buying"]. [inaudible] -- united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> national coordinator and organizer for the march on

washington darla dawald. >> so good to be here, finally. i've got out there. let me hear it. [cheers and applause] i just got word somebody's special you like his a great message for you in his name is guinn back. [cheers and applause] is the salles message for you special for all these people here and the people watching and interested in what we are doing. when you get done here you know how to find him and his websites. go there and see that special message that is just for you. i'm not coming to run it for you. i want to set the stage and you know it is there. go find it. bollenbach is talking to you

folks. he has a special message for you [applause] it's been a long year we started rhesus net back in january making major plans for work on d.c.. a lot of people think we couldn't pull it off. we showed them, didn't we. [cheers and applause] this country means a lot to me. i believe in america. i believe and what america stands i believe in the people that are here and where you stand for. god gave us the right to freedom god and our four founders made a way for us to be one of the

greatest countries on earth. [cheers and applause] and nobody is going to take that from knous. [cheers and applause] can they hear us now? [cheers and applause] one of the representatives that congress know was we are here. well, of course. we have shot down in d.c.. i think everybody knows we are here. [cheers and applause] my hope from this day forward is a miracle will get back to what it was founded on. that america will pay attention to their representatives, the

senators. ♪ that's fine. i didn't know i was doing a dance in the middle of this. come on, america! stand up. ♪ just remember god has blessed america and the blessing hasn't ended and it's up to you to get out and make the changes america requires to stay in the land of the free. god bless you, your family, and god bless america. [cheers and applause] ♪

>> we use low-cost high impact techniques. we don't waste on -- [inaudible] >> we got a nasty call from an anonymous source saying he put a bomb in the building and we are evaluating right now. these guys will go to know and. people so dangerous to america they have to threaten with bombs. they are throwing slurs' trading house like a garbage and we are going to show than twice as strong. >> that's right. [applause] ♪ >> health care alone we are talking 17% of the economy and the government wants to control it and there's a lot of interest in town that want to control it. we think we are going to stop them and so they are doing this. to be honest we are more annoyed

than scared. >> what can they do toomas? >> we are here and this is an effort to disrupt that activity. >> whoever would do this on the eighth anniversary of september 11th is a sick individual. >> not only affect our reaction is to keep working. [applause] >> now she's helping survive obama. stand up and welcome national recording artist bruce. >> i do a lot of recording in nashville. we are doing recording of the by

you and i did do what i said i was going to do when katrina hit. i said i would do a benefit cd. i got on the benefit cd. it's called forgotten but not gone i am all met with marty stuart and parnell sings the cut forgotten but not gone. look for it on cd. thank you. hid, maestro. ♪ ♪ ♪ you better get in the game or you will be to blame ♪ ♪ because freedom isn't free going to take you and me to

stand up for their right ♪ ♪ stand-up and meet your of ways heard ♪ ♪ stand up and spread the good word ♪ ♪ stand up and joined the tea party talks ♪ ♪ sing it with me. stand-up ♪ ♪ those folks on the hill are sending the bill but my kids future is in doubt ♪ ♪ going to cut with chain saws and axson is up the marketplace sort all out ♪ ♪ stand up, making your voice heard ♪ ♪ make your laws herd ♪ stand up join the tea party talks ♪ ♪ if you choose not to do a

little thing like a vote ♪ ♪ don't complain about what you did ♪ ♪ because they will come and take your money and guns away ♪ ♪ you haven't seen anything yet ♪ stand up, make your voice heard ♪ ♪ stand up ♪ spread the good word ♪ joined the tea party talks ♪ helpless throw them out ♪ stand up and ♪ make your voice heard ♪ stand up ♪ spread the good work ♪ stand up ♪ join the tea party talks ♪ helpless pro all of them down ♪ help us to throw all of them

out ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] thank you. he is. i just put a little polish on that. he let me sing and i appreciate that. thank you, gordon. >> target's federal races in support of conservatives. here is right march president and founder william green. >> hello, america. i can't tell you, you have no idea what a beautiful sight this is to stand here and see all of you coming here to stand up for what he is right. [cheers and applause] god bless you for taking the time to come here. we have a model, our motto is

patriotism in action. this is what it's all about, taking action because you are patriots, and i am overwhelmed by the people of america that have woken up and have said we are taking our country back and i am excited about this. i've got another balto for today. the malveaux for today is it is the constitution's, stupid. [cheers and applause] the constitution of the united states. one of my favorite amendments, amendment 10, nor prohibited by the states are reserved to the states respectively are to the people. that is what this document says. [cheers and applause] thought things they are trying to do right now are not

constitutional. and we'll need to make our voices heard. when they stand up and say we are going to have government provided health care for everyone because its constitutional, they lie. they say we are going to spend taxpayer dollars to get insurance to illegal aliens and then they stand and say we are all going to really do that, they why. when they say we are all for using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions and then they say we are not going to do that, they lie it's time for ross to be able to stand up. i thank got for congressman willson that had the courage to

say you why. [cheers and applause] you lied. it is the constitution, stupid, you need to read it and you need to obey and that is what we are here to do. go to write marched out, and send the message to your senators and tell them read the constitution and obey. thank you very much, and god bless you. [applause] >> please welcome successful architect who is the subject of a biography, a legacy of the white eagle, world war ii freedom fighter julian kowalski. >> my dear friends, fellow americans, this is a great day of my life. [cheers and applause]

first of all i want to congratulate all of you and thank all of you for joining hands today declaring your love and patriotism and loyalty to the united states of america. [cheers and applause] all of us have cherished freedom independence to the fisheries who understood there can be no human progress under tyranny. [cheers and applause] our founding fathers knew the space ideals would never be realized men are willing to lead on their lives. they believe no sacrifice is too great and no place to hide for

the defense of freedom and independence. [cheers and applause] we are all in feet by millions of this enfranchised disinherited, this multitude throughout this world of ours. the iranians live under the tyrannical mullahs. the north koreans, the burmese and the sudanese live in fear of the military oppressors, they live in fear any moment their schools will be blown up by the taliban. yes, we have a lot to be grateful and thankful for in this great land of ours. [cheers and applause] if you got live under tierney

you cannot fully grasp how lucky you are to believe in, usa and how important it is to continue fighting for our cherished way of life. [cheers and applause] i wrote a book called legacy of the white eagle. it is my story of growing up as a teenager in the midst of the occupation of the long five years of the second world war. it is also the start of what people like you can do for freedom and independence when your country needs you. [cheers and applause] when the germans invaded poland and become the era of unimaginable terror.

well i was 12 equals to our schools and was sold into the underground army. when i was 14i was arrested and tortured by the gestapo. 15, i fought in the 1944 warsaw uprising which was vicious street fighting in world war ii, even worse than the battle of stalin. [cheers and applause] if you can imagine 180,000 civilians died in two months, the equivalent of the world trade center attack, every day for 60 days, eventually we were forced to capitulate and tuberculosis was transported in the cattle prisoner of war camp in germany from which on the

escaped nine months later. [cheers and applause] you would be justified in asking why did kids like me fight so hard during the war? war is a horrible thing and life the most precious of gifts, why didn't we resist and fight? many to death. it is because of legacy of freedom. [cheers and applause] [chanting "freedom"]

♪ while you are in washington i urge you to visit the arlington cemetery by walking among the headstone's tried counting them and remember these young men and women who lead on their life for du. [cheers and applause] please, please remember the legacy. please remember we all have some responsibility to keep the flame of liberty burning. thank you. god bless you. [cheers and applause] >> i just want to say we still need your help. this doesn't and today. we need to hear from you what you think of the biggest threats to freedom and i want to remind everyone that has not yet, take

part in the poll, text "freedom" to ma usa, 69872. let us know what you think are the biggest threats to your freedom. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, everyone for being here today. i want to extend a special thank due to the volunteers who made this day possible for us. one second. what i would like you to do is ask if you could kind of love were ignored signs and everybody, let's let them get a word. all right. everybody who volunteered to coordinate a bus, raise your hand. everybody who sent e-mails in finding other people, raise your hand.

everybody who volunteered on thursday, friday or today, raise your hand. everybody who volunteered in their local organization to make this event possible, raise your hand a huge round of applause. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> i want to encourage every one of you to engage and get involved now that you're not so far, but get out there and involved in your local politics. get involved in what is happening. make changes happen. today is not the end of an event. today is the beginning of making a change in 2010 that will ensure freedom for everybody. get out there and get involved

in your organizations. you have seen people come from different places today that represent a lot of organizations. there's plenty of places for you to go and get involved. thank you for coming out and sacrificing. we are so glad you did. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> this will be the last part of the evening. this has been a long day. i'm so grateful with everyone showed up today. i can only agree with what has been said already. go back home, stay active. listened, president obama better look out because we are all community organizers. [cheers and applause] everyone have negative because trip back and thank you for being part of the march on washington september 12, 2009. god bless you. [cheers and applause]

>> one last, very last thing. tea party patriots is working on and launching a contract from america be sure to check that out and find out, give your input for what you want to see happen in the government. one last thing. we were here today to make our valises heard. congress, can you hear us now? can you hear us now? president obama, can you hear us now? [cheers and applause] thank you, everybody, for being here. and remember. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ stand beside her and guide her ♪ with the light from above ♪ from the mountains ♪ to the oceans

♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ ♪ god bless america ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ god bless america

♪ my home sweet home ♪ god bless america ♪ my home sweet home ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ we're not gonna take it

♪ no, we're not gonna take it ♪ we're not gonna take it anymore ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

i don't think it is an understatement to say this building wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for the persistence of chief negative justice taft. >> taft had in mind the courts

needed a building of its own. when he became chief justice it became almost an obsession. >> supreme court week with insights from historians and justices starting october 4th on c-span. and go on line and now for a virtual tour of the court, historic photos and more at c-span.org/supremecourt. now, a senate hearing looking at the possibility that cell phone use could be tied to health problems including brain cancer. first remarks from senator tom harkin. this is one now were and 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> -- health and human services

and other agencies will come to order. there are an estimated 200 million cell phone users in the united states about 4 billion worldwide. i would venture to guess almost everyone in this room uses a cell phone on a regular basis and most of us don't give a second thought it could harm us in any way. however a growing number of experts think there is cause for concern. the amount of radiation emitted by cell phones albeit small billions of times less than an x-ray but some researchers believe over the course of many years even this low level radiation could cause cancer of the brain and central nervous system as well as a range of other harmful effects. indeed international studies have suggested people who use cell phones for more than ten years are more likely to get tumors on the side of the head where they usually hold their phones.

other studies meanwhile have found no correlation at all. so it is not the intention of the subcommittee to create undue alarm. but one thing we want to discuss today is whether we need more research in this area and how that research should be conducted. expert witnesses will also discuss whether there are precautions we should be taking now reduce radiation case of these fears turn out to be well-founded. i am reminded this nation's experience with cigarettes, decades passed between the first warnings about smoking tobacco and the final definitive conclusion that cigarettes cause lung cancer. if more people had heeded the early warnings or if we could establish the link between tobacco and cancer many lives would have been saved. we don't know yet whether cellphone radiation poses a

similar danger. i hope today's hearing will begin to address the question. and before we turn to the first panel, i would yield to senator specter, who i would state for the record requested this hearing. it was senator specter who came to me and got my attention and suggested we should indeed have a hearing into the more i looked into it the more i think that senator specter is absolutely right. >> i had to call senator harkin on his cell phone to get him. [laughter] i was able to get through. again by thanking my distinguished colleague for scheduling this hearing. the subject was brought to my attention by a distinguished doctor who's written extensively on cancer, from the university he wrote a book on cancer which

i found to be very illuminating. i've had a couple of bouts with hodgkin's and was fascinated to hear the doctors use about sugar and white flour feeding into cancer or if you had chemotherapy a couple of times you look at any conceivable source to minimize the risk. and when he told me about a conference being held which is under way today on the senate it seemed while he requested the hearing has stayed dr. professor from the department of graduate school of public health this would be a good day. you have, mr. chairman, outlined the issues i think six dingley.

i think it is worth edition knowing there is a 24 million-dollar study under way which hasn't gotten far what is in process and i think that you are correct there ought to be a look to see what else needs to be done. i noted a couple of comments, one from the national cancer institute which quote more research is needed low-level radio frequency. well, the question and the world health organization there are gaps and knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks and i think it is worth noting israel and france have taken some action on the issue

and guidelines for the use of telephones, so it is something worth taking a look at not in an inflammatory or exciting way but with any stark statements but it's a serious question and a serious question ought to get a serious analysis and there is no better place to do it than the subcommittee. thank you for convening of a hearing and i thank the distinguished witnesses for coming. -- before, senator specter. the last 20 years we've been working together i can honestly say that senator specter has always been on the cutting edge of looking at research and asking the tough questions should we be doing more research in one area especially near cancer i don't think anyone has been more forthright and had

strength and purpose for all these years and senator specter pushing the frontier on the cancer research. >> senator harkin and finally asked questions but provided the big answers. the part however small and increasing and on each budget from 12 to $30 billion over a decade and in the stimulus package our efforts adding $10 billion more which has weakened the interest in research with 15,000 grants with a level of funding which resulted in across-the-board cuts and taking $5.2 million out we have done more than provide questions. >> we've pulled together. all right.

thank you, senator specter. we will turn to the first panel and i will say for this panel and also all the witnesses your statements will be made part of the record in entirety. i would hope you might some them not been and what see let's say seven or eight minutes, okay? i won't have a strict cap along that try to keep it to seven minutes or so in the testimony. the first witness is dr. john buchner of the toxicology program, effort between the national institute of environmental health services and fda. to coordinate talks the logical testing programs in the departments of health and human services. dr. bucher received a master's degree from the university of north carolina and ph.d. in pharmacology from the university of iowa. dr. bucher, welcome to the

committee. please proceed. >> thank you. mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee i am pleased to discuss research reported by the national institutes of health national institutes of health and fire mental sciences and the toxicology program on exposure of radiofrequency, radiation from the use of cellular telephones. i am john bucher director of the program. cellular telephone is radiofrequency energy or radiation for mobile communications. wireless communication devices are used by more than two eckert 70 million americans. with so many users this could translate to a significant public health problem should the u.s. slightly increased risk of adverse health effects. we'll await isn't conclusive flee we and other organizations believe better data are needed to risks radiation associated

with use three the food and drug get fenestration nominated cellphone retial frequency radiation emissions to the ndp for toxicology testing. the nomination was based on the following concerns. there is widespread and exposure. current exposure guidelines are based on projections from acute injury from thermal of practice. little is known about potential health effects of long-term exposure and sufficient data from human studies to clearly answer these questions may not be available for many years. the ndp is working to provide information that will help clarify potential hazards from exposure to cellphone radiation. we are in the initial stages of conducting toxicology carcinogenic studies using specially designed chambers to provide exposures that simulate those of cell phone users in the united states. the rats and mice will be exposed from the two technologies, cdma and gsm

currently used 91900 megahertz because the complexity when you're working with experts from this technology. the scientists have developed a system that provides you from exposures to radio frequency radiation to on restrain prudence in the frequency band used in mobile communications. this design allows exposures up to 20 hours per day in contrast to the most comprehensive cancer studies carried out to date in europe using restraint animals for exposures only two hours per day. the system consists of 21 chambers assembled in switzerland and installed in the research institute laboratories in chicago. the chambers are essentially shielded rooms with the transmitting antenna emitting radio frequency fields and rotating to generate statistically uniform fields. the speed is conducting studies in three phases, pilot studies

dustin bushfield strength that do not raise body temperature, said clonic studies were animals are exposed to various sub formal field strengths for one months and carcinogenesis at these studies for 24 months. the studies include both rats and mice and pregnant female rats allow them to examine potential health effects from exposure is starting in gestation and continuing through old age. the plan but studies are nearly complete. some chronic studies will begin early next year and chronic toxicology and carcinogenicity studies will start late, 2010 finishing 2012 with pure to review reporting in 2013, 2014 time frame. in addition to the ntp study research is under way it institutions supported through the nih grants program. the research portfolio of the national cancer institute include several examining possible association between

cell phone use and cancer. internationally agreed is exploring possible links to exposure to electrical and magnetic frequencies and tumors of the brain and central nervous system. in the u.s. researchers at five academic centers are undertaking the first effort to examine environmental risk factors for a tumor that forms in the tissue surrounding the brain and spinal cord. cell phone use is a major environmental risk factor to be considered in the study. these grants are expected to conclude in 2011 with findings available shortly thereafter the nih is using american recovery reinvestment act funding to support researchers at ucla study and with their exposure to cell phones and a childhood can affect the central nervous system. the award for the study includes over 100,000 danish children. the research study will study whether exposures are related to a developmental problems as well as outcomes such as seizures,

migraines and sleep disturbances. thank you for the opportunity to talk about these important studies. the study site describes have a commitment to determine whether risks to public health or post by the use of communication devices. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i was asking who is the gentleman with you. i understand you are here to try to fix the powerpoint presentation or something like that? >> i'm afraid i am not good enough at that. >> not working? >> well, that's all right. did you have something else, dr. bucher, that he wanted -- >> now that we have the power point presentation we were just going to show pictures to give you a sense of the magnitude of

the operation. these are the chambers that were designed and built in switzerland and then shipped to the research institute in chicago. you can see they were large enough to place a crane and a drop in to an underground laboratory facility where they were obviously being received and moved into place. and here is the picture of the final series -- >> i don't understand what the chambers are for. >> the chambers are where the rat studies will be carried out. these are exposure chambers where the radio frequency radiation will be exposed to the animals. >> using varying levels and all that? dr. bucher, the research that you describe that ntp and false animals. i certainly understand, since we -- this committee has been

involved in working with researchers for many years i a understand the value of that sort of research. the subject rodents to radiation in ways you wouldn't want to try on people. i guess in these chambers we learn a lot about the basic science, but many other countries are doing studies involving humans. more so it seems than in the united states. we are going to hear leader about a collaboration involving 13 countries. in fact practically every study that will be discussed by the second panel of witnesses took place overseas. so i guess a two-part question is why hasn't there been so far more done here in the united states to look at the epidemiology of brain cancer among cell phone users? and why aren't we part of the inner phone collaboration with?

>> welcome senator, my understanding is that mci does support part of the phone study. it is a large study in 13 different countries that are supported by or coordinated by the world health organization. >> but i have a list and i will see the united states listed. >> i have the record we are supporting one of the principal investigators on the phone study but i could check that certainly and make sure >> i have 13 countries i just don't see the united states listed and i would like to know more about that. >> so why aren't we doing more on the epidemiology? >> i'm not sure i can answer that question. i have been looking at the grand proposals that have come into the national institutes of

health. the one study i mentioned earlier by elizabeth is being funded by the national institutes of health and that as i understood looking at at least some of the coleworts put together for the phone study. i do know with the food and drug administration has been working and works with an international work group from japan, korea, european union, australia, china, and world health organization. the united states participate in this international work group where they meet every year i believe to discuss health affect research on emerging wireless technologies over the recent biological research or look at standards, developments across the countries. and they also do begin to the prospect for international collaboration related to the safety of these devices.

>> yeah said while so many -- while the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively made cell phones with any health problems, and all their scientific organization evaluating available studies have included better data are needed to establish potential risk to humans of these low-level radiation exposures. the key is we have the weight of current scientific evidence isn't conclusive fleet itself on with health problems. what does that mean? is the weight 6040, 55, 45, 1910, 99th period one? what is the weight on this? >> i said the better data are needed for the testimony there

have been lots of studies on the cellphone radiation. there have been human studies and experimental animals in a wide variety of studies where a variety of tissues from animals and cells from animals have been exposed to radio frequency fields to try to determine whether there are biological effects. and i think that each of these areas with respect to this field have weaknesses and i think most people generally can see that there are weaknesses in each arm of this three legged stool i guess if you want to provide the weight of evidence. human epidemiology studies by think maybe currently adequate for looking at evens carroll loosely associated with exposure itself. so you can look up the behavioral effects while somebody is actually being exposed to sulfone radiation.

you could look at the effects on the immune system or things of that nature but the thing we are most concerned about is chronic effects, long term after long-term use and thinks that may take many years to develop. a lot of the epidemiology studies that have been done, the phone studies for example suffer from the weakness is all of the purpose of an sec knowledge with respect to the fact they rely on recalls how much one uses the telephone. they rely on -- this in fact introduces by a cs in these retrospective case control studies. the other major problem with epidemiological studies at this point is as you mentioned in the opening remarks there has only been ten or 12 years of exposure to these agents, and it is increasing dramatically.

and there have been hints recently there is an increase in brain cancer and the people who have used these cellular communication devices for a number of years. >> thank you very much, doctor. i want to yield down. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you had mentioned children. what are the considerations with respect to an additional potential risk for children using so cell phones? >> yes, what was the question, i am sorry. >> what is the potential additional risk for children and using cell phones? i've written a letter to give you a little help that the brain formation is early stages raise additional susceptibilities or something to that.

>> i think with respect to many exposures to many agents as we study more and more agents and look at different life stages where these agents are being exposed to children or animals -- >> how about children? is there significant risk? i have got five [inaudible] >> children have a configuration of the skulls that does allow penetration of cilluffo and mediation de per -- >> are you say there is potentially greater risk? >> i am saying there is potentially greater risk. >> what limitations if any if parents are watching this on c-span what should they do? >> i wish i had a good answer to that. >> would there be a precautionary approach?

i understand some of the foreign countries are recommending that there be a limitation. is that true? >> yes. >> would you recommend that? >> i don't think that we are in the position to make that recommendation. ..

>> there is a $24 million study underway. is that adequate -- being conducted by the federal agency. >> this study is going to address one of the three aspects of the research program. and from the standpoint of the animal data, it will answer to the questions of the best of the ability of that technology. >> should there be studies on humans in the united states as there are elsewhere? >> i certainly would suggest that there should be studies on humans, yes. i believe -- >> would you give the subcommittee a recommendation of what sort of studies you would recommend for humans and the cost? >> i could do that. i can't do that now. i could do that. >> tomorrow? i know you can't do that now, but do it as soon as you can?

>> okay. >> private companies have made contributions to your -- some of the studies, it's my understanding. are you aware of that and to what extent private companies are helping? >> yes. to some extent. i know there have been some studies that have looked at the literature with respect to who is funding particular investigators. and the one study i recall indicated that 20% of the papers published from studies do acknowledge that there is funding from private -- >> well, studies, but you look at the literature doesn't go too far. is there research being done that is to be put in the current literature? >> that's a scenario that is difficult to answer. >> cue study that stumpage --

stumpage and -- subject and give us a written response? >> i will. >> i notice in the briefing materials that cell phones should not be used in areas where reception is weak or blocked, such as elevators and trains. is that so? and if so, why? >> the power that is required to reach the cell base station is higher in those situations, therefore there's mow radio frequency radiation transmitted. >> on the elevator my cell phone conks out. is there more frequency? >> i believe that's the case because the cell phone is trying to reach the extension. >> the red light came on. would you give us a more

definitive answer to that as to exactly what is involved and why there ought to be extra precautions are in those circumstances in an elevator. >> i will. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your leadership on this. dr. bucher, let me ask. how long witness -- will it take you to do your analysis? >> it will be taking place in 2013 and we will be reporting in 2014. >> why that long? >> there's a three year period of team that animals are exposed, and then it takes time to examine. >> will there be any preliminary numbers? >> it's a three-phase study and

there will be information available from the first two stages earlier than that about they won't be definitive respect to outcomes such as cancers. >> do you know if wireless phones were tested before they came on the market? how much testing was done or not done? >> with respect to health,-related testing? i do not know the answer to that. >> i think there would be a lot of people that would be curious about that to know if anything was done. my sense is that there are people who have very strong suspicions.this, but i think we need to look closely at the science and look at the studies, and i appreciate your efforts. their other studies going on, either in this country or around the world that you're aware of?

>> there are many studies still going on around the world. >> in other words, yours woken be -- won't be the first. >> i'm sure there are. >> are they going on in the u.s. or other countries? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. dr. bucher -- i left my cell phone someplace. i have one of these. from a professional standpoint, we know the science is not quite definitive yet. we know what the weight of it is. if i have cell phone and i was going to talk on it like this, or if i could use this device here, which i plug into it, and

then put this in my ear like this and hold this away from me and i could talk here in my little microphone here, in your advice, which would be best for me to do? >> my understanding is that the position that you're holding the phone now is preferrable to up against your head. >> preferrable to holding it to your ear. so you would advice people, as a precaution, if they can do this, it would be better to have a device like this? >> as i understand it, yes. >> now, as opposed to blue tooth. blue tooth is an electronic device and it still receives the electromagnetic low frequency

radiation. would this be better than blue tooth? >> i do not own a blue tooth. >> that is not blue tooth. this is wired. >> sorry. >> blue tooth is that -- something that gets the information without any -- you get the radio frequencies near your head, even when you talk into the microphone in a blue tooth, you're getting the transmission close to your brain, and on this, of course, it's down here quite a ways away. >> i stand corrected. >> you say this is preferrable? >> yes. >> i'm going to ask the same question of the other panelists when they come up. thank you very much, dr. bucher.

we have to move on. thank you for your expert testimony and thank you for the work you do at the laboratories. thank you, dr. bucher. now we call our second panel. a big panel. i will introduce them and you can take your seats accordingly. -- carolinas you, holds professorships in china and at the university of helsinki in finland. he earned his ph.d from the university of finland, lectures on mobile phones around the world, and has worked on two workshops on this issue. -- sadetzk i, the head of the

clinical epidemiology department and director of the cancer and radiation unit at the gertner university. received an md, a masters of public health, she wrote the ministry of israeli health guidelines. and we have a senior management scientist, an engineering and scientific consulting firm. she has 30 years of experience in environmental epidemiology and health risk assessment, earned he ph.d in epidemiology from the university of oklahoma, and an ms in biostatistics.

dr. debra davis is a professor of epidemiology at the university of pittsburgh graduate school of public health. she got a ph.d in science studies the university of chicago. she served on numerous governmental and international advisory boards and wrote a book, quote, the secret history of the war on cancer. end quote. and lastly, dr. olga naidenko. a senior scientist at the environmental working group, a washington, dc based nonprofit organization. was the lead author on the report issued last week by the environmental working group on the topic of cell phone radiation. we welcome all of you here.

we will start with dr. leszczynski. five to seven minutes, something like that. i'm sure we would like to get into a discussion with each of you, and your staples -- statements will be made part of the record. please proceed. >> thank you for inviting me to this important hearing on topic of great concern to all of us. i am a professor at the university in china and ajunk professor of biochemistry. i would like also to thank the people who made it possible for me to participate in this hearing. i have been working doing

basically research in the field of biological and effects of mobile phones for the past ten years. the findings of my research group suggest that the mobile phone radiation -- these findings do not prove there exists a hazard. my institution has issued two advisories for mobile phone users. the first advisory in 2004, was a part of the advisory that included finland, sweden, denmark, norway and iceland. we had an advisory on children using mobile phones. children are of special concern because of their developing

brain, also studies from industry suggest that children's brain is more exposed to radiation than adult brain when using cell phone. both advisories point out the uncertainty of the scientific evidence and the need for precaution in the use of mobile phones. the intention of both advisories is not to discourage people from using the mobile phone technology. however, they remind us that there are still large gaps in the knowledge of the mobile phone radiation effects on humans. they currently have high level scientific evidence about the radiation emitted by mobile phones is contradictory. in edition investigation there are both studies showing the effect and studies showing no

effect. i would like to refer you to my recent statement. in the present situation of the scientific uncertainty, the statements that the use of mobile phones is safe are premature. if i may repeat it, to make it certain that in the present situation of the scientific uncertainty, the statement that in use of mobile phones is safe are premature. in my opinion, the current safety standards are not supported by scenes because of the needed -- by science because of the need for research of effects on children and long-term use in humans. this uncertainty is also cause for further research. the studies -- we need a new direction in the research.

we need international, well-designed, comprehensive, molecular level studies. these studies should be aimed at proving or disproving whether human body response to mobile phone radiation. in spite of years of research, we still do not have the answer to this basic question. however, research finds in this area is a major problem. continuous assurances there's no health recollection coming from standard sitting committees and the funding agencies are reluctant to fund new research. for many years, the way mobile foam research because the funding was available there. research community is hoping that u.s. will begin get more involved in this much-needed research by providing necessary

funding. in the meantime, why waiting for the new research, because of the existing scientific uncertainty, it's wise to support the use of precautionary measures in everyday use of mobile phones in order to, whenever reasonably possible, limit the body exposure to mobile phone radiation. thank you for your attention. i wait for your questions. >> thank you very much for your testimony. dr. please proceed. >> i'm greatly honored to be -- >> please punch -- >> i'm sorry. >> i'm greatly honored to testify at this important hearing on a subject which affects a substantial proportion of the world population and which has great importance for public health. my recent testimony, i am a

physician, board-certified in epidemiology and public health. i am the director of the cancers epidemiology unit. i am involved in research and i advice the chief director of health on radiation and cancer. i'm engaged in studies on brain cancer funded by the european community. for over ten years i have been participating in research on the recollection of tumors associated with cell phones. initially as the principal investigator, and currently i am involved in another study founded by the e. u. on cell phone use by children. in 2008 we published findings suggesting a risk of salivary

gland tumors in people who had used cell phones, and when use was relatively heavy. the administer of health adopted the precautionary principle that briefly says, better safe than sorry. i publish evidence recommendations for several simple and low-cost measure. this is very important, very simple and very low-cost that should be taken to reduce exposure. i believe that the clever engineers out there in the industry can very easily find creative solutions to that. these measure include speakers, ear phones, hands-free devices when driving, and as you have seep before, the use of cell phone -- restricted use of cell phones in areas where the signals weak. we have proof that the children

population is susceptible to carcinogenic effects, and studies have been published in other countries. now, our findings are in line with some other studies of brain and acoustic -- the nerves that control hearing that demonstrated an increased risk of more than ten years of use and use on the same side of the head as the tumor. however, there is a debate among scientists -- this is where we are today -- whether these are true and those specifically. i also appreciate the issues. i suspect the result but i respect the results primarily the result that we have. i would like to explain one important point which illustrates the importance of the existing data.

at least ten years is the time needed for cancer studies. in the case of brain tumors it may reach 30 to 40 years. for example, the atomic bomb were the first report demonstrating brain tumors among survivors aren't published not 1994, 50 years later. it began to show in the 60s since wide-spread cell phone used started in the 1990s, the study is only as long as ten years. which is not enough time. since then the amount of time people spend on cell phone has increased dramatically. additional research is needed. the united states has always been a leader in medical research, your making this a

high priority would advance studies in this field. and it's essential -- this is very important not to invent the wheel but to learn from the past experience. there are now four billion people using this technology, including children. consequently, even if a small risk exists, the great number of users could result in great damage. until definite answers are available, some public health measures with special emphasis on children should be instituted. preventive steps for other technology such as driving provide a good example. we all use cars, but in order to reduce the risk of accident, legislation was passed concerning the use of seat belts, air bags, minimum age of driving, speed limits. i think it's exactly the same thing. i believe that cell phone technology which has many advantages is here to stay.

however, the question, as far as i am concerned -- the question that needs to be answered is not whether we should use cell phones but how we should use them. and that is very easy to address, i think. it is my hope that the issues raised in this hearing will encourage you to promote research and take action to ensure the safes' responsible use of cell phones. i would like to thank dr. davis who invited in here and thank you for your attention to this issue. >> thank you very much for coming a great distance and thank you for your testimony. now we move to dr. linda erdriich. welcome and please proceed with your testimony. punch that button. >> thank you. i have been asked by the ctia to

prepare today to provide my independent assessment of the science related to potential health effects from wireless phones. i'm a senior managing scientist in health sciencesser in. i have 30 years of experience in environmental epidemiology and health risk assessment. i earned a ph.d from the university of oklahoma and i have a master science. much of my work integrates work from other disciplines for determining where human exposure can present a hazard to human health. at the environmental protection agency, i evaluated research related to chemical con tan nantzs of air and water. they were idea to develop standards -- and water quality standards, exposure limits. i prepared evaluations for

chemicals, for radio frequency, and i have published in peer reviewed literature. i have been active in increase standards. i served an advisory committees to government and regulatory organizations regarding health evaluations of chemicals and of electromagnetic fields. a little background of cellular phones, using radio waves, and it's the range on the electromagnetic spectrum, broadcast radio, television, and other devices including cordless phones, baby monitors and microwave ovens.

radio frequency energy is not radiation in the same sense as for high-frequency x-rays. there is a standard scientific approach used to determine whether on exposure source poses a health risk. this process requires that all of the published literature be considered which will include studs that reported effects and those that have not. this is a method i used for evaluating the radio frequency research throughout my career. in this appropriation after the literature is compiled, each studies evaluated and more studies given to those of better quality because they are more reliable. this approach is designed 0 to

ensure that study ares not singled out to support a preconceived point. as for any health assessment, the relevant research includes many different methods, studies in animals, experimental steweds of human volunteers, and epidemiological studsies. each of these approaches hays strengthss -- has strengths and limitations, and numerous studiesogy the different approaches have been conducted over the past 50-years. several scientific organizations -- these include government agencies and professional organizes -- have used this procedure to assess the potential for health effects from rf exposure, and some of them have set exposure limits to ensure safety of the public and workers. these expert groups include

scientists with different skills. while the conclusions vary, all of the agency reports that assess the evidence using the comprehensive approach use -- reach similar conclusions, that the current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that wireless phones cause cancer or other health effects. a few examples follow. this -- the agencies that have regulatory authority are the fcc, and food and drug administration, the fda, and they have both reached similar concludes. the fcc concluded there's not scientific evidence that pews that wireless use leads to cancer, and the other study does not link cell phones with health problems. the conclusions are reached by

commissions around the world, including the health council of the netherlands, and the european commission has a committee called the scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks. the w.h.o. organization has a study. and the institute of electronic enter -- engineers reviewed this in 2005. but the most recent one was in 2009. the international commission of nonionizing radiation protection has reviewed all of the evidence and one of it -- one section of the report is a study in 2009, and his summary he wrote in the

last few years the epidemiologic evidence of risk has grown considerably. in our opinion, overall, the studies published today do not demonstrate risk for any tumor of the brain or head tumor. ...

we have to ask why are other government issuing the warnings? why are the governments of finland and israel no strangers to radar or electromagnetic technology is why are the issuing concerns about this particular issue? i think as you begin remarks about tobacco it's important to recognize there's no one in this

room today who doubts we should act sooner about tobacco. when we should have acted one candidate but as i say in my book we certainly could have acted in the 1950's and when president nixon started the war on cancer and 61 an admirable act he ignored tobacco although the general warned about its dangers in 1964. i think it is fair to say we have a level playing field in this issue and absence of the epidemiology evidence isn't proof there's not a problem rather it is a reflection of the fact we do not have a level playing field that does united states today has not published a new epidemiological study of brain cancer and cell phones since 2002. although the nimh budget doubles under senator specter's leadership's the budget for the national institute of environmental health sciences recently doubled it took 11 years to get there and that is

the institute the discharge between the study i would point out the study we heard about from dr. booker was originally proposed in 2002 and now we hear because the delays which i need not tell you why they occurred because those delays the study results will not be available until 2014 and we are talking about a technology that affects every single one whether we are accusers or inadvertently exposed. now the doctor told you wife and in detail why epidemiology is difficult. i want to add the data involved a single exposure to an atom bomb that took 40 years before he could find the affect. we are talking about cell phones many of us are using all the time and children are using unprecedented levels and we have never been exposed it at this level in our lives. i want to also tell you unfortunately there has been a history that i think we need to recognize when professor henry

developed the pioneering damage that shows you a tale of dna when its damaged it developed that a 1994 if they had been more modest it would have been called the lions but it's called the common essey. he is with us today. when they developed that a 1994 they showed radiofrequency exposure to brain cells could be damaging in terms of the common. the response which has been documented and is in my book as well as other places was this first day went to the nih and tried to get funding revoked. then they went to the journal that accepted the article's publication -- >> huessy de? >> the industry working against seeing this published and i have the details of the firm and individuals that wrote the memos in my book i will be happy to attach for the record.

then the lobbyists tried to get the article on accepted in a journal in a finally the high your other scientists to do advocacy research to invalidate the science and when those scientists confirmed the work it was never published. a similar story can be told today in europe about a major multimillion-dollar supporting study called the reflex program that was a multi laboratory study in many countries that also showed evidence radiofrequency signals at precisely the level of today's phones could damage dna contrary to the assertion only ini radiation can damage dna and those researchers were subject to the same kind of attacks and have recently been exonerated by independent review by the medical university of vienna so i think it is clear the united states needs to catch up. we need to catch up with european allies and see that we issue warnings for children as well and i have a simple

proposal we definitely need major research on this issue. on like tobacco almost everybody in the world is using a cell phone today. we need research desperately but how are we going to find that in this difficult time i have a simple proposal. we can place a 1 dollar user fee on a cell phone every year for three years. there isn't one parent in this room that wouldn't like to know what a cell phone would mean for their child's brain in the future. the 1 dollar fee should support international and independent research because unfortunately we have not had independent research in this area and finally i believe it is appropriate at this time to ask the fda and ftc to review standards come existing standards for cell phones are based on causing heat avoiding the injury of a thermal effect and the we phones are used today

unfortunately some cases of ours it is time to show a new approach. thank you very much for your interest. i think you have done the world great service by bringing us together and i want to say i am not alarmed, i am concerned because the world has changed very capitally and we have the right to know what that change might mean for our health and that is our grand children. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dr. davis. now we turn to the environmental working group and i might just say that we've called this hearing at the suggestion of senator specter before this study came out last week.

please proceed. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee im a scientist at environmental working group and organization based in washington, d.c., ames on iwo. holding this important hearing and opportunity. last week they released a ten month investigation of more than 200 peer review studies government advisories and industry documents on the cellphone radiation. we found that during the first two decades of cell phone use produced reflected results and definitive conclusions on cell phones. but the latest research and scientists are for the first time able to study people who used cell phones many years

suggest potential. the state of the scientists and more research is essential. we are still using cell phones but we also believe until scientists know more about cell phone radiation it is smart for consumers to buy phones with the lowest commissions. cell phones, hand-held devices are part of everyday life. as december 2008 subscribers and 30% jump in three years. as the market's have gone so has the urgency that is all phones are well understood and cellphone radiation scandals to protect public health. cell phone companies label their products so that consumers can make informed choices and

point-of-sale and the government requires disclosure. currently most people are given no information at all about radiation. we created an interactive consumer guide to sell some radiation covering over 1200 phones. in the 64 hours following the publication of the review and radiation database 42,000 people access the web site numerous news articles and broadcast news. the response from the public which was the consumers' interest in the cell phone safety. much more research is essential, however in response to the information available over the

potential cellphone radiation government agencies in different countries have helped consumers reduce exposure to the saloom radiation especially young children. for a simple, in 2005 united kingdom department of health stated in consumer advisory, quote, chief medical officers strongly advise when children and young people lose mobile phones they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for ascent purposes only. ebal calls short, prolonged exposure and should be described. in contrast the food and drug administration of the federal communications commission have all but ignored evidence that long-term cell phone use may be risky. the fcc said cellphone radiation standards 17 years ago when a few people used cell phones the standards failed to provide adequate for cellphone radiation

exposure and do not account for risks to children. the science itself on risks we recommend a number of actions to the cellphone radiation and putting use low radiation phone, use a hand set and let children cell phone use. in conclusion, ewg believes government should support additional research into this question and allows the public has the rights to know what levels of radiation they may be exposed to, what is the potential risk and what precautionary measures consumers can take to protect themselves and their families for the health effects of cilluffo radiation. thank you. i welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, doctor and i will start the first round

of questions. thank you. i was looking at the summary of your working group last week. you have a tracking tool that allows visitors to track to the contract smart phones. is that list available? can i look and see what models would below list and would be highest? >> yes, the database is available for consumers for anybody on das ewg website. it is searchable, consumers can look for a specific model with highest radiation output, so it is a tool that has had immense success of the five days since it has been released. >> you also say that you're finding is text and trump's

talking. that is your first tape, right here. but taxing costs money. it costs more money than talking on the phone. [laughter] right on cue. [laughter] are you going to answer? [laughter] so you would say text rather than talk but i want to point out expensive. well, you know, it seems to me we have these studies and i am getting some carries information today that there are some studies that seem to indicate to me that there are findings that

show some people have been exposed long periods of time have higher levels. is that a fair statement i made that there are studies that show people have longer-term uses of cell phones compared to another group of higher incidences of brain or had cancers? no, yes? yes, doctor. >> this statement is correct. i think when you look at the data you see the first ten years nothing happened however many you look at the individual studies out there you do see something after tenures with

views as you said before holding the phone on the same side and the study also shows increased risk for people in the high category. however what we need to understand is standards for research the studies are based on few users because very few users have been using the phone more than ten years. therefore, i have public health is a public health practitioner and researcher. obviously for the research enough. there is a discussion whether these observations are true or whether they are methodological problems. so as a researcher i do say we have and something is going on however we need more research but as a public health practitioner i am saying wait a minute this is a red light and we must do something. and especially since this

something is very easy to implement because all we need to do is put herself loans away from our body. >> dr. davis you said, again following up on this, you cite the doctor's study and say that the phone has studied people where persons have used phones heavily for a decade or longer there is evidence of significant increased risk nearly doubled risk of malignant brain tumors. is that the correct interpretation? >> i cannot comment on the overall result because the overall results or under review and are not published yet. but is -- would use it is correct when he will get individual studies published of the overall results. >> but again those are based on

-- >> those are based on people who are long-term users. the term long-term user is not very correct because we are talking about people who talk more than ten years. >> dr. davis, you said the one researcher studied young people who began using cell phones as teenagers. professor leonard of sweden has found those who started to use cell phones heavily before age 20 have four to six times more brain tumors than by the time they reach their 30's. can we get documentation on that? >> absolutely. tomorrow with the international conference held a few blocks away i invite your staff to attend at 8:00 in the morning and there will be speaking where he will present not only that result but additional analyses of new cases. you have to understand in the scandinavian countries and

israel the have been using cell phones a lot longer and a lot more heavily than we have. so unfortunately, they have some of the data. i should also add one of the most troubling findings in a series of studies produced in the united states this is one study done optimistically at a fertility clinic and in hungary and other countries fighting reduced sperm count and young men who keep their phones in their pockets which unfortunately many do even though if you read the advice and the blackberry it says keep the phone 1 inch away from your body, actually .98 in case you want to be precise. but the reality is very few people do that and lots of young men keep their phones in their pockets particularly in the summertime and the cleveland clinic published a study showing reduced sperm count and that isn't the only such a study but only the most recent one. >> let me ask the question i

asked dr. bucher. i've got my blackberry which we use all the time. again i will go down the line. if you were to use a blackberry like i do and are calling people, if you had the option of putting it up to your your like this and talking or you could use an earphone like this with a speaker down here what what you do? >> i personally and my institution is advising to reduce your pieces is that of keeping small phones to the head. it is a very cheap way to reduce exposure to sulfone radiation so i would use an earpiece. >> any difference? >> same thing. >> i recognize the use of the phone would decrease a person's

exposure. i don't think -- i can't agree it reduces the risk because i don't think the total picture of all the studies taken together with all of the complications i don't think this assessment suggests there is risk from using a cellphone. >> dr. davis? >> i brought my earpiece but i want to go on to read what the site since the doctor suggested to the contrary the site since the scientific evidence doesn't show danger to any users of cell phones from exposure including children and teenagers. the steps adults can take to reduce the exposure apply to children and teenagers as well. bullets, reduce the amount of time spent on the cell phone, bullets, use speaker mode or set to place more distance between the cell phone and continuing to read from the site. some groups sponsored by other national governments have advice

to children be discouraged from using cell phones at all in 2000 and the recommendation was strictly precautionary and not based on scientific evidence any health hazard exists from the fda website. it's in my testimony submitted for the record. the question we have to ask is what is evidence? do we insist the only evidence we will accept is when we have enough sick or dead children? i hope that is in the case and that we have made progress as a society to take the kind of precautions our colleagues in israel and finland and other nations are taking today. and i especially want to thank my colleague who is himself a scientist, physician, researcher and brain tumor survivor. so his interest in the issue is quite intense and personal.

>> same question we recommend day they use such as the ones you holding your hand and i think they have a very similar one. >> any difference between this and blue to the? >> blue tooth is itself frequency radiation so when the cell phone is here the table next to me the distance is shorter so the radiation put out than a cellphone would put out based on the science review we've out experts have created distinguished colleagues and earpiece such as the one you have our colleagues in switzerland do feel for the good choice and then we have reviewed government websites for many european countries that have

found some recommend both, recommend just one and they feel either had said would be better than holding the phone to the year. >> on blue tooth, we will go back on this way. >> if you're using a blue tooth and have the phone away from you and turned off when you are not using it it does give less exposure. but the problem is most people who use a blue tooth have the phone on their hit, right at the bone marrow and on all the time and that is what we are concerned about. >> the difference between >> if there are usually it is the boy to this better than the cell phone itself but there are situations which the platoon's involves higher emissions than the cell phone itself, such as

when the receptionist really good. so because the blue tooth is always constant exposure when the cell phone adapts with a base station all the time besides we are worried when people where the blue tooth it is so comfortable it is become part of your body they will talk more and more and therefore overall exposure will be higher. >> blue tooth is because you don't have the wires and we don't have the slightest idea what this continues exposure of the area can achieve in and do time. therefore it is much easier to remember dr. davis mentioned when people have blue to the interior they usually keep the cell phone somewhere in their pocket and then the area next to

the cell phone is exposed. the different areas will be exposed, not the head but somewhere else. >> what is the strongest evidence and you know about the alleged connection between the use of a cell phone and a brain tumor? >> the strongest evidence doesn't come from human studies and that is the problem when we are looking at the information we have to rely on evidence such as the default by the national institutes of environmental health sciences in this country and researchers in europe. in the recent project and others. if we look at experimental studies we have strong evidence. if we look at human studies as

commented -- >> tell about the experimental study. >> here we go. this is a model of the brain and while the precise information in here has been debated this is approximately of the absorption that gets into the head of a 5-year-old and this is about the absorption of the blue line -- >> that establishes there is more absorption -- wait a minute, just answer the question. that establishes more absorption from a 5-year-old but that isn't my question. my question is what is the strongest evidence you have that exposure to a cell phone causes cancer? >> the process of cancer arises from different insults to our dna, the basic building blocks of genetic material inside of ourselves. researchers have shown that radiofrequency frank signals can cause heat shock proteins the

body forms in response to stress -- >> wait a minute. we don't have time for this. we have five minutes. >> i think i can do with in five or less. >> just answer my question. what is the strongest evidence you have an exposure to a cellphone causes cancer? >> the work that has been donner it shows a double strand breaks in dna after expos are to cellphone radiation is very strong evidence experimentally. if we tie that with human studies that have looked at people that have tenures exposure or more we put them together and have strong evidence. >> well, the doctor testified that you see something after ten years but says that there are so

few involved she can't draw a scientific conclusion. is that an accurate statement? >> regarding the ten years, yes. but first of all i would like to say i am not sure that there is an association. i cannot be sure based on the current epidemiological data. but what worried me was that in my study i saw consistent positive results and they always appeared where there was a possibility. they do not appear in this group or that. the appeared in more than ten years and on the same site where the phone was held and they appeared for the heavy users and in rural areas compared to urban and this also had ability because where it is more dense the exposure is low were so the fact that all of these indications appeared where they should have appeared told me it was a red light.

but as a scientist this isn't enough for causality but is indication that according to my judgment it is enough in order to advise the precautionary principal. >> it is not enough to conclude a causal connection; is that right? >> writes, for the causal association the criteria are much more strict. >> doctor, you've testified the evidence doesn't demonstrate connection between cell phones and cancer. now it is much harder but what would you answer as the evidence demonstrate that there is no connection between the cellphone and cancer? >> that is a very important observation >> i've made an observation. i've asked a question.

i am not having much luck with answers. >> i think the strongest evidence isn't any single study. the strongest evidence is there is a body of research where we have looked at whether certain studies that showed anything can be replicated, whether we have looked at consistency across studies and where there have been more than 40 animal studies that use different measures to assess the long-term risk. evidence doesn't come from any single study to the evidence comes from careful review looking at the strength and weaknesses together and putting the data together. this is supported by the fact the phone studies as dr. sadetzki states taken together do not -- are not showing an association between use and cancer. so the answer -- >> not strongly suggest shoving

between the use and cancer. >> it doesn't show. >> but that isn't a demonstration that there is no connection. >> exactly. what is important is that in the background context of what we know about the nature of the sick of the strength of the signal, how it interacts, they're has been research going on over 50 years although the research the last 20 years is of course used to improve. >> i had a hearing that had similar question. the question was is there evidence there was no conspiracy on the assassination of president kennedy. you don't see the connection, but proof of an negative is very different from the proof of a positive. and when you baliles it all

down, what i hear is not a whole lot of disagreement on this panel. you, dr. erdreich, say that there is so little question that you wouldn't take any precautions. i find that -- wait, i'm not negative -- finished. when i am finished i will pause. but where you in up with all the verbiage you do not say evidence demonstrates there is no connection. is that if your statement that your testimony? >> part of that is it your statement. >> which part is it?

>> the part i said there is absolutely no risk whatsoever. >> that wasn't part of my question. that was an observation before. >> your statement that it's hard to prove a negative -- >> let's go back to my question is it a fair summary of your testimony that there is -- the evidence does not demonstrate the absence of connection between exposure and cancer? >> the evidence does not -- excuse me, have to take the liberty of rephrasing. >> the evidence does not demonstrate there is no connection between the use of a cell phone and cancer? >> he said the evidence doesn't

demonstrate there's no connection. is that what he meant to say? i'm sorry. >> a fair statement that your testimony is the evidence doesn't demonstrate there is no connection between the use of a cell phones and cancer. >> the scientific evidence could never demonstrated a total no connection. >> that i take your answer to be correct. let me tell you where i come out what comes through to me is we don't know what the answer is. dr. sadetzki raises a lot of red flags that says it isn't butterweed to sell phones but

how we use them. she isn't advocating self loans. and dr. davis who drew almost as much applause as a senator harkin -- [laughter] -- made the comment she is not alarmed but is concerned. and the issue of precautions comes through to me with the exception of dr. sadetzki's testimony that the cautions are worth taking, more than [inaudible] -- i have concern for feeding into cancer or precautions are not a bad idea. it may not be a good idea but they are not a bad idea. and the issue of children we ought to look at is the sensitivity of the issue. we have the duty to do more by

protecting children. the question boils down to what studies are necessary because nobody knows. and the question as to whether the people who sell sell phones ought to be taking more studies. that is the heart of the question. whether there is enough risked to people who provide this alfonson and whoever does that my recommendation is of the study the the testimony very carefully and that more is to follow. one final question, dr. davis. does your invitation to appear at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning to hear this fellow from overseas

extend to everyone? >> absolutely. we will have it available on the web and people have to register by 7:30 the want to be in by eight. >> if it is on the web we can sleep in? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you. >> let me follow one another thing. first of all, i know that we don't have jurisdiction over the fda or the fcc. >> when has that stop you -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, you didn't hear my follow-up because my chairmanship on another committee i do have jurisdiction [applause] what i want to follow up with is

a question i will pursue beyond the panel with my friends at nih and that is dr. erdreich stated and i make a note of this because i've wondered this a long time, the art of energy is sent radiation the same since because the energy is so much lower and on able to change the dna. do you have any definitive proof that this energy is on able to change the dna. now, dr. davis said a study by professor hagee and sing is we could produce defect since 1994 so i have two different things

and i said i will pursue this beyond this panel with an eye each to see if we have a definitive answer. dna is harmed by low frequency. did you have any further views on that? >> i can't hear you. >> this brings the part of the spectrum because it isn't known to cause the changes we talked about. there have been mentioned a study. it isn't the only study, and the agency's i've been involved with the headlines read about that have reviewed have concerned all the studies on this question and the have not concluded that it's been proven to affect the dna of cells, and the second part is the stronger evidence -- the strongest evidence you can get is from humans but this difficulties and epidemiological

studies and animals. most agencies and authorities that do evaluate health risks think these studies are important but it is quite a stretch to say that what happens can happen in human beings or animals. >> dr. sadetzki, yes? >> i don't want to get into the discussion to we have mexican or not work we still need to improve the eckert mechanism and what to mention briefly if the low frequency was determined by the international association for cancer research could have been 2006. >> what -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. it is some of the body of the

who which classifies carcinogens and they have different levels of carcinogens spaulding such as smoking or ionizing and ending buy not a coughing suited to this low frequency which is often the spectrum of low energy, was determined by this organization in june, 2006 it is possible. >> possible. >> yes. >> dr. did you have something you wanted to add about this? >> we don't have the precise knowledge what the dna is damaged. there can be to wheys way is how we observe dna. the lawyer of the issue itself could interfere with process of dna itself.

normally all the time damage occurs spontaneously, and this could either interview with process of repair and fragments of dna, or it could damage. however, as was mentioned earlier there are indications from some countries that no one can produce and action if special molecules which are chemically active called free radicals and those molecules could indirectly damaged so we have the options for the mechanism. right now we don't know which one of them is the correct one and the humanity is the most important and valuable for us.

however this suggests this new direction to namely making experiments and human volunteers. this is a small audience of a scheme of people to the mobile phone location. take a sample and examined for example dna damage. we've done these kind of experience not only dna but -- [inaudible] it is possible to do and permitted by the experimentation. >> do you have any more? i just had a couple of follow up things.

>> dr. sadetzki and you have i was trying to get through all of these, and you recommended holding the phone away from the body. we've already gone over the ear piece that. dr. sadetzki, you said the same thing of speaker or phone or hand for the phone, keeping it from the body. dr. davis, you said a cell phone should not be kept any closer than an inch to your body, is that we use it? where does that come from? >> that actually comes from the blackberry manual as well as on iphone, which nearly none of us does, that is what they say. so while calling for warning

labels as i am i am simply calling to codify the industry is telling about siltstones. and i but also add when i was privileged to work with ronald herbert hoover men as cancer institute, he looked at the evidence on this issue as one of the world's most distinguished cancer biologists and concluded it was appropriate to warn the staff to take the simple precautions, the same precautions israel was recommending, the same precautions finland, denmark and sweden replicated. >> let's face it, now my wife has a blackberry. she keeps it in her purse. [laughter] fine. we all have these pollsters, right? we put them on our belts. are you telling me i should not wear a blackberry that close? >> actually, the pollster may get enough difference. that's why blackberrys is 1 inch. an inch is -- you get some distance. that's why they recommend you

use their holsters. but the reality is we don't know, and as scientists it shouldn't be my job to tell you -- >> i don't have an answer between my holster. [laughter] you know, they recommend their holster. this is a question i guess we all to ask the appropriate agencies to get involved. dr. shriver is working with senior french officials and the government as well as in the telecom industry because they are working in the telecom industry in france at least to make the kind of changes they think are appropriate, and i would hope this hearing will lead to a new day of cooperation because we need the cooperation of the industry to solve this problem. we really do. >> my last thing is this. cellphone technology is changing almost every day now, blackberrys.

now you do everything. get their computing devices. i'm not an expert in this, with what i do with this and everything else emits more than what my old self and use to which i just talked to people on. is that true? >> i don't think we know. in fact not necessarily because so long as you are holding it out here and actually are going to get less exposure this is what we are concerned about right now and this is where we need the fda and fcc to look in carefully because the current standards are based on the standards for a 200-pound man with an 11-pound head talking for six minutes to avoid heat. that's not relevant to my three year old granddaughter who loves to play with a cell phone and that is the problem we have. current standards are set for a very large, big man, and not for me or other people of the world today. in brazil for example there are

127 cell phone users and under them are under age 20. thank you. under 20 million. thank you. >> the last thing i want to say, doctor, i don't have that list. describe for me just a little bit, the testing you would do. que tested 1200 different phones? >> just to clarify what we have done, we have conducted a science review of over 200 publications. there's peer reviewed studies, government advisers, and that is an hour cellphone report. we have also compiled information on over 1200 phones. they did not test the phones. they looked for that information in all publicly open sources. we did succeed. as for some we did not and they decided this government does not require disclosure and consumers have to go through owners and

time-consuming tasks to find out what the model may need. >> there's no government agency to put up this kind of information? about how much our frequency is put out by the different phones? the fcc doesn't publish that? >> the fcc does maintain the database, or a document associate it with every phone. every phone models would be identified by assisted usaid. but with regard to location and formation is cellphone users pass to know their social ideas of the steps or by phone, go to the office, this isn't available at the point of sale or the readily available of application. sprick i want to see eye for list. somebody ought to at least know the difference in the ratings

are. to last things, senator specter and i both have to leave but dr. davis. >> you just need to know that they reported essays are, of propes can be affected by two to four. there is no monitoring. there is no surveillance. the only time the fda can act is a hazard has been reported as happened in the case of the algae look phoning canada last year where a quarter of a million phones were recalled because they are found to have higher emission rates so even though they may be publicly available in the ewg is combined. is it at that sar or goblet. >> he wanted to add something, dr.. >> on every phone in the market.

>> you are doing that now? >> for four years now. the second thing, i don't think that an inch would be enough. i would like to see the phones beach further from the body and you ask how it will be done and this is a very legitimate question. i think that if the companies need to do it, they have such clear engineers. it's a difficult problem i see it as a minor problem. i think it can be done very easily with few engineers sitting together in the room for half an hour. [laughter] >> senator specter, anything you want to add? >> seeking what we can do on monday afternoon of the senators are intent -- [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

thank you very much, all of you. i found this really very interesting and very challenging and on a ensure you were there also if you want to thank us off. the subcommittee stand adjourned. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

i don't think it is an understatement to say this building wouldn't be here if it were not for chief justice taft. >> taft had in mind the court needed a building of its own. he believed that when he was president and when he became chief justice it became almost an obsession. >> supreme court week from historians and justice is served on october 4th on c-span. and go on line now for a virtual tour of the court, historic photos and more at c-span.org/supremecourt. up next, vietnam ambassador to the united states. he spoke about relations between vietnam and the u.s.. this is one hour and 20 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> why don't i get us started. >> i will start and introduce you. good morning, everybody. welcome. if i can ask you to turn off your cell phones so they don't interfere with our microphone system. first of all. thank you, everybody for turning out. especially to the ambassador for turning out on a rainy day. often when we get a downpour like before turnout plummet's so i am glad to see we have a full table of interesting important guests which is something of a testament to the importance of

the u.s. vietnam relationship but before i get into it i want to express my thanks to the fund for supporting the speaker's serious we have a couple of people from abbett today some of them from chicago. thank you. we appreciate when people come to see friends. what's interesting to me about the turnout for this event is it reflects the brac of the relationship -- we have significant security interests, sycophant commercial and interests, and i think that reflects how increasingly important the u.s. vietnam relationship is becoming. vietnam is a big country. 85 million people. it is strategically located in asia-pacific and its relationship with china is positive yet -- positive to us

and that is a very important factor that gives the opportunity to increase our relationship. the other that struck me is interesting, and i think it's vitally important as u.s. and vietnam trade which was less than 3 billion in 2002 and is now over 15 billion last year and since signing the bilateral trade agreement in 2001 and the launch running wto in 2007 it has blossomed into a rather fruitful and valuable relationship. very quickly, i will introduce ambassador le cong phung. he's a career diplomat and prior he was the first deputy foreign minister at the ministry of foreign affairs and second ranging official and assisted to the foreign minister and conduct of the vietnam's foreign policy he served as deputy foreign minister between 2001 and 2004 and he was assistant minister

from 99 until 2000. from 2002 to 2004 he acted as the chairman of the committee on border affairs and as the national commission for unesco. with that, thank you very much, and after your remarks we will take questions from the audience. >> thank you for the introduction this morning. it is my great honor to meet here to say good morning